​Turismo de salud cardiovascular, la otra cara del sistema colombiano

A través de casos específicos, este reportaje radial expone las diferencias existentes en el acceso al derecho fundamental de la salud por parte de ciudadanos colombianos y extranjeros que padecen alguna cardiopatía. En él se recogen voces de pacientes locales e internacionales, expertos en turismo de salud, críticos del sistema de salud en el país, personal médico, asociaciones de defensa de usuarios y representantes de hospitales y clínicas. A través de las fuentes entrevistadas se muestra por qué Colombia se ha convertido en un destino atractivo para tratamientos y procedimientos del corazón y se analiza cuáles son las principales causas de esta diferenciación entre unos pacientes y otros.

Alternatives to Reparations in International Investment Arbitration– A Debate Between Theory and Practice

An analysis of the alternatives of compensation in relation to international investment disputes is relevant, because a pecuniary award is not always the appropriate remedy to solve disputes arising between investors and States. This is the case because States may be increasingly interested in opting for a different type of compensation. Furthermore, it is still not clear whether arbitral tribunals have recognised alternative types of awarding damages in respect of international investments disputes. This analysis comprises two principal components, the first, is to identify whether or not the tribunals may render an award that not only demands the payment of a sum of money but also considers some other means of compensation. The second, centres on how compliance with these non-pecuniary awards may be demanded. Our approach to these two principal components will always revolve around the idea of respecting the sovereignty of the State, bearing in mind that the execution of an arbitral award, which obliges the State to refrain from or to perform an act in its territory, relies precisely on the sovereignty of the State to execute it. 

Delimitation of the Right to Life by Healthcare Professionals: Up to what point should the right to life be protected?

This article explores the medical care standard required by law for terminally illpatients and the possibility of limiting therapeutic efforts while respecting the duediligence expected from doctors. To this end, circumstances are identified in whichthe doctor is forced to choose between two possible actions: to guarantee the right tolife by continuing treatment, or to limit the right to healthcare by limiting therapeuticefforts. Two cases taken from English Common Law were reviewed that decided onthe factual problem at hand. In our country, the Constitutional Court established aline of jurisprudence on the role of the doctor in deciding whether or not to continuetreatment for a terminally ill person. Lastly, jurisprudence precedents are presentedalong with a comparative analysis of the solutions given in Great Britain andin Colombia.

Fundamental Right to Freedom of Conscience without Objection? Some Notes for its Recognition as a Fundamental Guarantee

Conscientious objection is defined as the ability to depart from statutory mandates because of intimate convictions based on ethical or religious convictions. A discussion of this issue presents the conflict between the idea of a State concerned with the promotion of individual rights or the protection of general interests and an idea of law based on the maintenance of order and against a view of the law as a means to claim the protection of minimum conditions of the person. From this conflict is drawn the possibility to argue whether conscientious objection should be guaranteed as a fundamental right of freedom of conscience or as a statutory authority legislatively conferred upon persons. This paper sets out a discussion around the two views so as to develop a position that is more consistent with the context of social and constitutional law.